With all due respect, Froma Harrop reminds me of the Christopher Moltisanti character from The Sopranos. In one first-season episode, Chris complains about having to talk on a pay phone in the pouring rain to avoid surveillance. Tony’s dismissive admonition: “Hey, you chose this life.”

Froma chose a different life, the same as any of us in opinion writing. We often hear from readers who see a “great writer” or “a hack” from the same piece. The difference is whether that reader agreed or disagreed. Such is life.

If Froma wants an admission that The Wall Street Journal editorial page and Fox News Channel are as much mainstream media as The New York Times and MSNBC, here it is. And I rarely, if ever, agree with her, even as I appreciate her skill.

What I don’t understand is why she finds it so important that “right-wing pundits” cease and desist in criticizing … well, I’m not sure. The liberal media? The media in general? Journalism as a profession? The business?

“Without serious journalism, there will be no civic culture worth a damn,” she fumes, and I agree. Even the harshest critics of liberal bias in mainstream journalism don’t wish the profession to die, just offer a bit more evenhandedness.

How fairly has the media covered the tea party movement? Has it affected your judgment of people who insist government must learn to spend less, pay down its debt and live within its taxpayer-funded means? Compare that to coverage of Occupy Wall Street. Fair or unfair?

The answer, of course, depends on your point of view. If you sympathize with one side, criticism strikes you as unfair, praise as fair.

We chose this life. People are entitled to disagree and do, sometimes at great volume. If we are viewed as part of a class — “right-wing pundits,” for instance, or the liberal media — that’s simplistic but the way it goes.

Should we be more or less concerned about the U.S. media when so much of it accepts uncritically statements from people with whom they agree? Take the Obama administration’s narrative on the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya. White House officials insisted this RPG-fueled attack was a “spontaneous” response to an anti-Islam video, nothing more.

The problem, I’d hope Froma would see, is that most U.S. media also stated as fact for days that it was the video, ignoring obvious signs of terrorists capitalizing on lax security around Christopher Stevens.

President Barack Obama is running for re-election, so the White House had its reasons to obscure responsibility. What motives do the rest of us have?

Mike Hashimoto is a Dallas Morning News editorial writer. His email address is mhashimoto@dallasnews.com. Follow him on Twitter at @MikeHashimoto.